From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 16:25:53 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
Message-ID: <199509172325.TAA22254@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Responding to msg by unicorn@polaris.mindport.net (Black 
Unicorn) on Sun, 17 Sep  6:39 PM


>If some other 'punks want to get together and fund such 
>projects, I will participate.  However, putting the 
>burden of financing this venture (which will have no 
>immediate economic return, as I will support no venture 
>which does not result in fully public software) 


What are the prospects of privacy-enhancing programing funded 
by contributors for non-commercial, non-governmental, "fully 
public software?" I would tithe, modestly but durably, to such 
work if I believed the promise. They call me Ishmael Sixpack.


John Gilmore's (and others'?) underwriting toad is impressive. 
Along with the voluntary (?) effort of Hugh Daniels (and 
others, I don't know how toad survives).


What else might be done cypherpunk-wise if material resources 
were available? And under what conditions and arrangements? The 
discussion of Mixmaster commercialization is instructive. And 
Julf's and the other remailers survivability and longevity in 
the face of attacks.


How could the contributions be made without contaminating the 
product? No joke.


Or, are only individually initiated and self-funded programs 
trustworthy, when all is said and done? And no planned program 
as rewarding as the eclectic irregulated.


And bartering and bickering and rending and mending the only 
reputable method of exchange of the tumultuous souk.